Plastic or Metal?

[petercooman123]

I do them separately (for napoleonics,not for everything)

I find it a bit easier like that. Especially since the saddle of napoleonic era troops often got quite a bit of detail, so that makes that easier to reach.

Off course if you have a high density of models, this is less important, as you won't see it anyway 

[SteveBurt]

I have both and I prefer metals any day.
After all the work that goes into making and painting a plastic figure, you drop it and it's broken. Swords, lances and flags break off at the slightest touch.

Baahhhh. Stick with metal.

If you drop a metal figure it often breaks, too. If you drop a whole base of them they definitely break.

[SteveBurt]

Hello.

Thank you for your comments and fast response.

Another question while we are here, do you paint the riders together or apart regardless of metal or plastic?

Enjoying this forum stuff thank you!

Together. Years ago I used to paint apart, but these days I always assemble first

[Jabba]

I have both plastic and metal. Plastic are cheaper and allow for a bit more variety. It can take just as long cleaning up a metal figure before painting as a plastic figure in my experience.
I paint the rider separately as it gives more access. Make sure you scrape some of the paint away from the mating surfaces before attaching the riders though.
As you are doing the dastardly french, in plastic Perry have Dragoons, Cuirassiers/Carabiniers, Hussars and soon Chasseurs. Warlord have Lancers, Hussars and Chasseurs.

[Timmo]

Almost no join issues on perry/warlord. At least not visible on the ones I have.

Yes but I can see the arm joints on the Dragoons you've posted. In my experience they take a bit of greenstuff to properly disguise them. The Perry AWI figures I tried had terrible head/hat joins that needed remedial work with Greenstuff. The dismounted dragoons were in very untnatural poses with their arms floating. They are easier to paint than Perry metal but I still don't think they look as good. (The Sudan Mahdists are dreadful IMHO.)

[Plutarch64]

I agree with Jabba and prefer painting them apart before gluing them together. I usually paint the horses in one batch first, and then concentrate on the rider's uniforms and horse furniture.

There are a number of downsides to this approach though, in that you have to make sure the riders will properly seat before you start. I often forget to do this, which means I end up scraping the painted rider against the completed horse and bending the former until I can get them to fit, which usually results in additional painting.

The other problem is that I often find I have spent time on parts that won't be seen, and when I do finally get them in place there are sometimes superglue dribble marks which need to be tidied up.

I will stick to my preferred method though, as it allows me to concentrate on the animal first which gives me a sense of completion before I start on the rider.

[aphillathehun]

I'm kind of interested in trying my hand at Perry plastic Napoleonics.  I love their WotR stuff, but the clean up on them is really quite a lot of work.  (And, putting those WotR horses together so there is no seam showing down their back is really quite special).

I just started on some Front Rank Napoleonic mounted and I'd forgotten how easy it is to clean them up and start painting.

I guess then I like both.  For WotR I'd definitely do plastic again if starting over because I put in some effort to make conversions also.  For Napoleonics, I'll probably try my hand at some plastic cavalry at some point but am quite happy with the metals.  It's kind of a golden age, isn't it?

[petercooman123]

Yes but I can see the arm joints on the Dragoons you've posted. In my experience they take a bit of greenstuff to properly disguise them. The Perry AWI figures I tried had terrible head/hat joins that needed remedial work with Greenstuff. The dismounted dragoons were in very untnatural poses with their arms floating. They are easier to paint than Perry metal but I still don't think they look as good. (The Sudan Mahdists are dreadful IMHO.)

I thought you meant gaps in the joints.that's why I said they are not visible.

[Inkpaduta]

Plastic is evil! It is the downfall of wargaming!
Metal only!

[Eric the Shed]

Plastic is good - its so much cheaper on the pocket

[ARKOUDAKI]

PLASTIC without any doubt whatsoever! They are so much easier to clean up then metal figures, which often suffer from a lot of casting issues and are tedious to do. Whereas, a sharp knife edge blade and some Tamiya Extra Thin Glue will smooth out the mould lines on plastic figs. Plus, with plastics you can do all sorts of conversions if you are so inclined, especially with the 2 part horses. I have gotten to the point where I will only use metal if I have to, as they are just too much work to clean up properly.

All that said, it is whatever you prefer. So if you like making kits then plastic is for you. If you like the weight of metal figs in your hands and don't mind the clean-up and limited range of poses, then go for metal. 

[aphillathehun]

PLASTIC without any doubt whatsoever! They are so much easier to clean up then Perry miniatures metal figures, which often suffer from a lot of casting issues and are tedious to do. Whereas, a sharp knife edge blade and some Tamiya Extra Thin Glue will smooth out the mould lines on plastic figs. Plus, with plastics you can do all sorts of conversions if you are so inclined, especially with the 2 part horses. I have gotten to the point where I will only use metal if I have to, as they are just too much work to clean up properly.

All that said, it is whatever you prefer. So if you like making kits then plastic is for you. If you like the weight of metal figs in your hands and don't mind the clean-up and limited range of poses, then go for metal. 

FIFY

[Antonio J Carrasco]

I use both. I love some metals -Footsore, Front Rank, Aventine Miniatures, Empress Miniatures- and some plastics -Victrix-, while others metals/plastics I don't like that much -won't say names-.

To me is not important if it is plastic or metal as much as it is the overall quality of the sculpt, the casting/fitting of the metal/plastic parts, the crispness of the details, the historical accuracy of the model, the pose of the figure -sometimes is difficult to fathom how the sculptor could have believed that the chosen pose is natural in any way!-, and if the figure is "painter friendly" or not. One of the things I hate most is when in the figure appears a blob of metal that it has just a passing resemblance with an actual piece of equipment, but that forces me to do an exercise in imagination to decide what the hell it actually represents; or those figures that carry so much different pieces of equipment that makes them a nightmare to paint. And what about those plastics that miss whole parts of the figure in undefined clumps of plastic that you can't even imagine to what part of an actual uniform corresponds?

Quality is what I look for in a miniature. The material is not that important.

[kingsmt]

Plastic breaks more easily than metal. And I'm not talking about a join. Swords,
spears and rifles break in half, when pressured.
Someone here remarked that metal stands break when dropped.
That's not my experience. Things may bend, but rarely break off.

In the end, it's your choice.

[AdamPHayes]

I use both. It comes down to which figures I like the look of most. There is certainly more choice in metals and less stress when trying a conversion in plastic. (Oops it broke, oh well more spare parts!) Painting style is also an issue. I was sort of happy with my technique with metal figures but I have had to almost go back to school to find methods that look okay when painting plastics. Horses are also a big issue for a cavalry formation (no really?!) There are a lot of dubious looking nags  around in both materials. In metal if you can use a range that has Ebob or Ansell horses you are away.